Do minds exist?

[none]

more obviously it is your ignorance that is giving us problems, willing ignorance.. deliberate ignorance

Us?

Who are you representing?

it your overwhelming lack of evidence and your willingness to be ignorant that is the problem
us includes you, I am not excluding you based on your ignorance but it is a good way for you to segregate yourself so you choose

 

[fromderinside]

where are you? Humans live in the past. What they hear has already sounded. So the brain reproduces these past occurrences and through processing many attendings one or another attending dominates for whatever reason is rehearsed through articulation. Wallah. Mind.

For humans there is no present time. Everything has already taken place. Sure there may be a bit yet ongoing, but essentially, decisions have been made about what to do to correspond to now.

This is poetry.

Humans live within time. There is an ever changing present.

The way they know this is because they have a mind, that synthesis of all past and present stimuli into a coherent whole that can plan and change the future.

What the hell. Let me try again.

Many attending mechanisms, many memory mechanisms, very few of either demonstrate any integration with the others. We attend one way we articulate that way, we attend another we articulate another way, often not recognizing what was said for one contradicts the other.

So we don't have any mechanism in the brain that brings it all together.

We have little way of personally knowing about time beyond our on immediate sens of it drawn from our range of current awareness.

Yet you insist there is something ruling called mind. Besides from your own personal 'knowledge', which an be shown fragmented and inconsistent, do you have any way of proving mind as you 'know' it.

Quotes are used because they are called for when a term doesn't really have substance.

Overcome the many attending mechanisms that don't connect that can be demonstrated in personal and social settings for starters.

 

[untermensche]

What the hell. Let me try again.

Many attending mechanisms

Create a mind.

many memory mechanisms

Are part of the mind.

very few of either demonstrate any integration with the others

Meaningless. How they work to create a mind is unknown.

We attend one way we articulate that way, we attend another we articulate another way, often not recognizing what was said for one contradicts the other.

The mind is often irrational and people do irrational things.

But we try to make the best of it.

So we don't have any mechanism in the brain that brings it all together.

You are making an absolute statement that is a negative.

You would have to know and understand all brain mechanisms to make such a claim.

You don't, not even close. You know a few regions and a few pathways and some of the way neurons communicate, and not much more. You are miles away from understanding how the brain does something like connect all the regions involved in vision into the coherent whole we experience.

Yet you insist there is something ruling called mind.

Never said a word about "ruling".

Able to experience and able to make some decisions.

Besides from your own personal 'knowledge', which an be shown fragmented and inconsistent, do you have any way of proving mind as you 'know' it.

Again, this has been said, the greatest evidence of human minds is probably in human creation, science, literature, architecture, art.

The experience is entirely subjective, but the evidence is not.

Why is it one person can write many great works of literature and some people can't write any?

The difference of course is the difference in their minds. They have the same brain, at least genetically incredibly close.

Quotes are used because they are called for when a term doesn't really have substance.

The greatest evidence a person can have is that which they personally experience.

I know I have a mind much more than I know anything else.

Overcome the many attending mechanisms that don't connect that can be demonstrated in personal and social settings for starters.

Overcome the disparate mechanisms responsible for vision.

 

[none]

Create a mind.

depends on what a mind is, there is no universal definition for a mind so that makes it difficult to actualize your fantasies.

 

[untermensche]

Create a mind.

depends on what a mind is, there is no universal definition for a mind so that makes it difficult to actualize your fantasies.

A definition is not necessary for those experiencing something.

The experience is much fuller than any definition could be.

All it takes to know one has a mind is to experience a thought.

 

[none]

depends on what a mind is, there is no universal definition for a mind so that makes it difficult to actualize your fantasies.

A definition is not necessary for those experiencing something.

The experience is much fuller than any definition could be.

something like a mind? that which you have never experienced and never will is the mind, a mind, and minds.
you're welcome

 

[none]

and how do I know this, it is because you don't even know what a mind is.

 

[untermensche]

and how do I know this, it is because you don't even know what a mind is.

Does a person living in the jungles of New Guinea know what gravity is?

Do you need to understand Relativity to know what gravity is?

Or can you just drop something and clearly see what gravity is?

 

[none]

and how do I know this, it is because you don't even know what a mind is.

Does a person living in the jungles of New Guinea know what gravity is?

Do you need to understand Relativity to know what gravity is?

Or can you just drop something and clearly see what gravity is?

can I help you change the subject?
(your whining and bitching and deflection are noted)

 

[bilby]

and how do I know this, it is because you don't even know what a mind is.

Does a person living in the jungles of New Guinea know what gravity is?

Given the importance of microgravimetry in modern mine safety, and the significant mineral wealth of PNG, I would say that there are likely several people in the jungles of New Guinea who know what gravity is.

Do you need to understand Relativity to know what gravity is?

Yes.

Or can you just drop something and clearly see what gravity is?

No; that simple observation is compatible with other possibilities. More information is needed than simply observing a dropped object. The same observation could, for example, be made on a flat Earth that is constantly accelerating in the 'up' direction.

Unsurprisingly, it seems we have found yet another situation where your lack of detailed knowledge leads you to expound a false, but deeply held, belief from which you have not the mental ability to break free. It must be nice being so certain about everything.

Nevertheless, the 'Proof from Untermensche Can't Imagine Any Alternative' has yet to be adopted by many thinkers. I wonder why that is?

 

[untermensche]

Or can you just drop something and clearly see what gravity is?

No; that simple observation is compatible with other possibilities.

Are you claiming if I drop a rock and it falls to the ground this is not due to gravity?

Those were questions about this world after all. That's where New Guinea is.

 

[fromderinside]

No; that simple observation is compatible with other possibilities.

Are you claiming if I drop a rock and it falls to the ground this is not due to gravity?

Those were questions about this world after all. That's where New Guinea is.

May I be of assistance?

If one drops a pebble one happens to pick on a windy day at the beach it falls into the ocean 50 feet from where you dropped it. What was the cause for the pebble dropping into the ocean? Not obvious is it. It could be entirely the doing of the wind which obviously played a part since the dropped pebble wasn't thrown by you, you dropped it, remember. Certainly it is not obvious something like gravity is pulling on it. So as bilby writes your assertion is compatible other possibilities.

OK, you reason, there should be come control over conditions which might influence the experiment?

Ao to minimize conditions like wind, you go out into the ocean, put your arm with the pebble into the ocean about a foot below the surface.. Certainly there conditions are stable. But, look, when you drop the pebble it seems to move back in tune with the waves coming and receding, and further, it takes a long tine to reach the ocean bottom only about three feed below where you dropped it.

Darn. Not obvious again. It may have been entirely due to water action associated with the waves. Again there is little to suggest something like gravity might be involved in its motion. Again bilby is right. There are other possibilities.

Ahah, you reason. Remove all influences.

So you go out into space to the point where the there are no obvious influences on the pebble. Now you drop it and it just sits there. It doesn't rise or drop, float forward or backward, left or right. Nothing happens. Surely it there were gravity it would be optimally demonstrated under these conditions. bilby is heard again.

So it is with the brain and the mind. It take many persons conducting experiments to come to agreement about how the brain works under all conditions. Certainly you alone are not expert enough to experience all things acting on the brain in which you've place something called mind since everybody has one and everybody seems to behave somewhat differently. Surely you understand that?

Your self evidence is actually no evidence since you are in a unique set of conditions which only you experience. We have a name for that experience. It called a phenomenon.

You problem similar to Speakpigeon's problem with pain experience. Experimenters have shown that others sense one's pain before one senses it herself. Beyond just that experimenters agree on a particular characterization of the experience they witness and they can measure it, to the surprise of Speakpigeon, obviously, they can characterized much more accurately than can Speakpigeon when he gets round to 'experiencing' it.

Similarly experimenters has shown people have many awareness, some of long duration, others short, most obviously not 'aware' of the others. Similarly people have been shown to have a variety of memory types which seem in play in this and not that situation. Worse, some of those memories don't communicate with many of the awarenesses. In fact several awareness can be shown to connect with memory such that one works with speech, another with sign, but neither both or when shown to those using them, do not call up the other in memory.

You both suffer from the delusion that what you experience is true, is evidence, when it is acutually only phenomenon.

Rationalism has severe limitations. Unless everything is just so what one 'experiences' can't be replicated even in the individual so convinced one is experience true sensation or feeling.

Try this experiment some time. Get comfortable. Experience focusing on something you feel. Now concentrate and try to move it to another place. Now repeat this experiment after about four hours sleep where you are awakened by an alarm and instructed to repeat what you did earlier in the day. You probably won't even be able to find something to focus upon. Conditions. Terrible things those.

 

[untermensche]

You both suffer from the delusion that what you experience is true, is evidence, when it is acutually only phenomenon.

Only phenomenon?

Again, that which is experienced is the greatest evidence a person can have.

If phenomenon is experienced then you have both the phenomenon and the thing that experienced it, a mind.

 

[bilby]

No; that simple observation is compatible with other possibilities.

Are you claiming if I drop a rock and it falls to the ground this is not due to gravity?

I am claiming that your experiment is inadequate to positively assert gravity as the cause. There are other hypotheses that are not ruled out by your experiment, that would also lead to the observed result. I even gave you an example of one such hypothesis.

Those were questions about this world after all. That's where New Guinea is.

It doesn't matter what world you are in; if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, then given that information alone, it is premature to conclude that gravity exists.

That you cannot grasp this is not a problem for my argument; it is merely a demonstration that you lack imagination. As if that were not already clear from your other posts here.

Your incredulity that other possibilities than your first guess might be true is a hallmark of your posts; it is alternately amusing and frustrating, but it never guves your audience any grounds to be confident of the veracity of your claims.

 

[none]

You both suffer from the delusion that what you experience is true, is evidence, when it is acutually only phenomenon.

Only phenomenon?

Again, that which is experienced is the greatest evidence a person can have.

If phenomenon is experienced then you have both the phenomenon and the thing that experienced it, a mind.

prove it.
prove your claims with evidence.
prove the claim that you experience a mind is reasonable with evidence.
I understand you don't know how to communicate but you could try.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter what world you are in; if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, then given that information alone, it is premature to conclude that gravity exists.

You're nuts.

We know very well why the rock falls.

You are so desperate to criticize you look foolish.

 

[none]

It doesn't matter what world you are in; if you drop an object and it falls to the ground, then given that information alone, it is premature to conclude that gravity exists.

You're nuts.

Go away.

You are so desperate to criticize you look foolish

duh, a mind could be responsible for the behavior of the object.
grow a pair.
and quit using words you don't understand like foolish, and mind.

 

[Juma]

Do you need to understand Relativity to know what gravity is?

yes. But it is not enough.

Or can you just drop something and clearly see what gravity is?

Absolutely not.

 

[fromderinside]

As the thought begins to trickle down to the masses ....

If phenomenon is experienced then you have both the phenomenon and the thing that experienced it, a mind.

...and where does this second entity arise? Story of Cyclops fathering the Gods perhaps?

Think about it. You and a mind. The thought is boggling.

Now I understand Freud. He was talking to his mind.......thank you untermenche for that ...






...utter nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

Or can you just drop something and clearly see what gravity is?

Absolutely not.

What are we missing?

It is the full expression of gravity.

If you don't think so, what besides gravity is causing the rock to appear to fall?

Do you think our scientific explanations of the color blue are more comprehensive than the experience of the color blue?

- - - Updated - - -

As the thought begins to trickle down to the masses ....

If phenomenon is experienced then you have both the phenomenon and the thing that experienced it, a mind.

...and where does this second entity arise? Story of Cyclops fathering the Gods perhaps?

Think about it. You and a mind. The thought is boggling.

Now I understand Freud. He was talking to his mind.......thank you untermenche for that ...

You're howling at the moon. Crying about the way things are.